Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway894345 | Hacker News Reader

I don't care much either way, but you have the privacy argument backwards. If you're downloading all the things, then no knows if you are using xyz, only that you might be using xyz. If you're just downloading what you need and you're downloading xyz, then they know that you're using xyz.

View on HN

I'm not sure I understand. This is talking about Cargo metadata download improvements. You still download individual packages regardless of receiving a copy of the entire registry, so privacy hasn't materially changed either way.

If knowing you use a crate is too much, then running your own registry with a mirror of packages seems like all you could do.

You're downloading specific packages either way, which can potentially be tracked, regardless of whether you're downloading metadata for all packages or just one.

Edit: A thought occurs to me. Cargo downloads metadata from crates.io but clones the package repo from GitHub/etc. So unless I'm missing something, downloading specific metadata instead of all metadata allows for crates.io to track your specific packages in addition to GitHub.

No, repos of packages are not used, at all. Crates don't even need to be in any repository, and the repository URL in the metadata isn't verified in any way. Crates can link to somebody else's repo or a repo full of fake code unrelated to what has been published on crates.io.

crates.io crates are tarballs stored in S3. The tarball downloads also go through a download-counting service, which is how you get download stats for all crates (it's not a tracker in the Google-is-watching-you sense, but just an integer increment in Postgres).

Use https://lib.rs/cargo-crev or source view on docs.rs to see the actual source code that has been uploaded by Cargo.

This has it backwards. crates.io has always hosted the crates themselves, but has used Github for the index. In the future, with the sparse HTTP index, crates.io will be the only one in the loop, cutting Github out of the equation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com